CURRENT LABOUR PROBLEMS

4.01 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate over the purge carried out by the Labour Front Coalition Government, I indicated to the House that private employers were carrying out little purges of their own. The Chief Minister, in his reply, sought to minimise the actions that private employers were taking against their workers. In the five weeks since that debate, I regret to have to inform the House that there have been more cases of flagrant abuse by employers of their position of strength as a result of the Government's purge. Those affected are mostly in the Bus Workers Union and the Shop and Factory Workers Union. In the case of the Bus Workers Union, Members in this House will recall that the Bus Owners Association, shortly after our debate, decided that the agreement with their union was no longer valid because, technically, they claimed the workers had broken a condition of their agreement by going on a lightning strike without notice. Fortunately, the intervention of the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) with the President of the Bus Owners Association prevented the bus owners from going through with this folly.

But individual members of the Bus Owners Association are, to the knowledge of the Ministry of Labour, carrying out a vicious purge quite contrary to what the Government itself wants them to do. In the case of the Hock Lee bus owners, the Minister for Labour is aware that his own Government released some ten persons working for Hock Lee whom the Government had detained for suspected subversive activities. When they were released, the Special Branch took the trouble of informing the Ministry of Labour that there was nothing to prevent these men from being re-employed by Hock Lee. The Ministry of Labour tried to persuade the Hock Lee bus owners to take them back, but they refused, because it would appear that the 5th of November was the expiry of the bus owners' deadline by which time everybody who had not returned to work was considered dismissed. As the adviser to the Bus Workers Union, I then wrote to the bus owners and asked them whether it was reasonable to expect people who were detained in one of Her Majesty's prisons to report for duty. No satisfactory conclusion has been reached and a very bitter situation is fast developing in that company. It may be that nothing explosive will happen in the next six to twelve months; but surely the Government, even if the owners do not realise it, must expect that this bitterness will lead to another explosion one of these days?

The Government is in a position to apply not only moral but economic pressure on the company, apart from legal pressure by passing new legislation if necessary, to see that there is no intimidation and victimisation of workers by private employers.

The other bus company which took the opportunity to carry out a punitive expedition of its own was the Tay Koh Yat Bus Company. I told the House then that members of the old union were being penalised by being made to work two-hour shifts. The Chief Minister was advised by his permanent officials that that was not so. That it was not so was because immediately after the disclosure in this House the old workers were put back on eight-hour shifts; but soon after, the employers, for the first time, told all the workers that they must stop working for one day each week, as required by the new Labour Ordinance - a compulsory rest day without pay - in order that they can be penalised; and that the spare pool which the employers have gathered for themselves in readiness for such an event could be given gainful employment.

Two weeks later, 15 conductors, because they had not collected more than a certain number of dollars per day, which the employers expected them to collect, were suspended from duty. Again the intervention of the Member for Tiong Bahru resolved what might have become an ugly situation.

A number of Shop and Factory Workers Union branches had similar skirmishes with the employers, and again these are known to the Ministry of Labour. The Thye Hong Biscuit Factory took the opportunity to repudiate an agreement with the Union and to reduce wages by about one-third. Intervention by the Ministry of Labour persuaded the employers not to implement this downgrading of wage rates. One week later the employers proceeded again to downgrade wages. Again intervention by the Ministry of Labour managed to get the employers to promise - no more than promise - that they will wait until the Chinese New Year before they reduce wages.

Some European employers, too, have decided to take advantage of the situation. There was one case of Thorny-croft's. There again, on the pretext that the workers had gone on a lightning strike and therefore repudiated the agreement, they sacked over ten workers, although in the agreement with the workers it was agreed that there would be no dismissals in case of redundancy, but that there would be a roster system so that everybody will be given some work and not retrenched. Fortunately, intervention, again by the Ministry of Labour, and negotiations between the union and the management produced some amicable settlement by way of severance pay for the ten odd persons who were dismissed. But the management gave notice that in the not too distant future they proposed to change the clause in the agreement, which they said was not valid, but which they were finally persuaded to accept as still valid.

But I think the most flagrant of all the employers was Messrs. George Lee Motors, whose proprietor is also the proprietor of the Nanyang Siang Pau. As a result of the activities of this particular entrepreneur, the regular reporter from the Nanyang Siang Pau is missing because he has been given the sack. The Government should realise what some Chinese towkays interpret the Government's action to mean. Some 20 workers in Messrs. George Lee Enterprises were sacked for no reason whatsoever. According to the workers, they were sacked because they had been active in a trade union which was a branch of the Singapore Shop and Factory Workers Union. When the workers asked Mr George Lee why they were sacked, they were told to see Mr Lim Ching Siong, who was in jail. The workers unfortunately did not go to the Ministry of Labour; nothing happened and they were dismissed.

In the case of Mr George Lee and the Nanyang Siang Pau, the Minister for Labour must be well aware of the private purge that this gentleman has embarked on. When Mr Seah Yong was released, Mr George Lee told the Singapore Union of Journalists that he was delighted and that he would take Mr Seah Yong back. One hour later, he issued a press statement saying that it was not the policy of his newspaper "to have anyone on the staff who had been detained rightly or wrongly by the Government." Now there was a patriotic and loyal supporter of the anti-subversionist campaign of the Government. "Anyone detained rightly or wrongly by the Government" is, as far as Mr George Lee is concerned, persona non grata. Mr Seah Yong was not reengaged, but worse was to follow. Mr George Lee's reporters and translators had decided that they would be prudent. They left the Nanyang Staff Union, which was affiliated to the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union, and decided to join a moderate, reasonable, English-speaking, safe and respectable union, the Singapore Union of Journalists. The reporter who used to cover our proceedings in the Assembly, one Mr K. C. Lee, was the Vice-President of this Union. Mr K. C. Lee was active in Mr Seah Yong's interests and had moved the Singapore Union of Journalists to see the Chief Minister on no less than two occasions. This action, I believe, somewhat displeased Mr George Lee. The result was that on one occasion, at an editorial conference, Mr George Lee informed all present, including Mr K. C. Lee, that it would be very good for them to leave the Singapore Union of Journalists. Mr George Lee was told that it would be very bad for Mr George Lee to be known as anti-union, anti even a respectable and reasonable union like the Singapore Union of Journalists. He exploded and said, "Yes, I am anti-union and so what?" On the 30th of October he sacked five of his workers - one chief reporter, two reporters and two translators - who had not been detained by the Government and therefore, we must assume, had not been considered subversive. When the Union of Journalists asked him what was the reason for this precipitate action, he banged down the telephone, like the democrat that he is.

Sir, the position is not yet acute except for those who have been personally victimised by these employers. But with the impending fate of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union - I think I will not be prejudicing the intentions of the Minister for Labour if I say that we expect something to happen to that union - 35,000 workers will be disenfranchised trade unionists. Unless the Government takes preparatory measures, 35,000 workers are going to suffer at the hands of the employers, because when the union is dissolved, all their contracts with these employers are swept away. Before there is time for these workers to organise new unions or join some other union affiliated to the T.U.C., they will have lost whatever benefits they had won through the old union. It is imperative, if the Government does not want these men to suffer because it has, for whatever reasons, incarcerated their leaders, that interim legislation be introduced to prevent any employer from repudiating any term or condition of service which prevails between him and the union for a period of six or twelve months. During this period the employer should not alter any term or condition of service without the consent of the Commissioner of Labour. Within this period the workers will be given an opportunity to regroup and form new unions or join other existing unions. Unless this is done, the responsibility for widespread discontent that is bound to follow the action of the individual employers in taking advantage of the situation must be the Government's. Whatever the Government can say about its intentions - that they are just punishing the "subversive" leaders and not the workers themselves - the workers will come to the conclusion that the action of the Government has, in fact, resulted to the detriment of the interests of the workers themselves. I therefore give notice to the Minister for Labour that, unless the Government takes the initiative, as I hope it will, I shall at the next sitting of the Assembly propose that such legislation be introduced to tide over the necessary time lag between the dissolution of the existing unions and the formation of new ones, so that in this time lag no employer will be able to take advantage of the situation and get his own back on the workers and their organisations.

4.18 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, out of an adjournment speech of about 18 minutes by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I find that about seven minutes were spent on the triangle of the Lees - my good friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), Mr George Lee and Mr K. C. Lee! It would appear that I am being held responsible for the misdeeds of Mr George Lee.

Sir, my Ministry has been keeping a very watchful eye on the situation. Ever since the Government took action against subversive activities as a result of which a number of trade union leaders were arrested and detained, not because of their trade union activities but because of their subversive activities, reports have been received by the Labour Ministry of alleged victimisation; and whenever reports were received, the Labour Ministry officials endeavoured to call in the employer as well as the workers concerned with a view to finding a solution to their difficulties. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has touched on the work done by the Ministry of Labour and he himself has been very closely connected with two or three such negotiations. He has suggested, Sir, that the Government should give consideration to the question of interim legislation in order to freeze the increased wages and better conditions of employment that have been obtained for workers as a result of the activities of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union. This matter, Sir, has been occupying my mind for some time and, as hon. Members know, I will be proceeding to London shortly, but I will leave instructions in my Ministry to explore the desirability or undesirability of introducing such legislation. But I must ask all workers in Singapore to come and report to the Ministry of Labour where there are, according to them, cases of victimisation. Unless we receive reports from the workers concerned, we will not be in a position to render whatever assistance we could give. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has said that, unless the Government agrees to introduce such interim legislation, his Party proposes to move a motion in this Assembly to achieve it. All I can say at this present juncture, Sir, is that I will cause a detailed investigation to be made into the desirability of introducing such legislation and the Member for Tanjong Pagar will be informed, at the latest by the next sitting of the Assembly in January, whether or not the Government considers it desirable to introduce such interim legislation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at 4.22 p.m.